Woke up this morning ... morphing to discussion on Heads of State.

A piece of news which doesn't seem to have pierced many people's consciousness but Grany might think is a step on the way to achieving her objective:

Labour would abolish the House of Lords if elected to government.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/labour-would-scrap-house-of-lords-says-scottish-party-leader-anas-sarwar

What we need most urgently is a new PM with a reasonable amount of competence, and a new Cabinet who do the jobs they are employed for, plus ordinary MPs with confidence in the ability and integrity of their leaders. Once we get those, we (and they) can start a long-term assessment and consideration of the constitution. If this crew bring in a bill to change the status quo it will end up a disaster making some people vastly rich and most greatly impoverished.

It won't be a quick project. There are many aspects to be considered, many viewpoints to hear, precedents and legalities to consult, surveys to plan, do, and analyse.

This is not the time to hammer on about the constitution. Park the thought until this specific mess is sorted out and we have a Government fit to undertake the work.

We need a new constitution

Really good laws are the ones which have been well considered and discussed before they are enacted, to cover all possible effects, intentional and unintentional, and how to deal with any unexpected effects, and which can be implemented and policed. If you can't implement a law, in practical terms it doesn't exist.

Grany

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

No, Grany, that is your opinion and The Good Law Project's, apparently, but it is not a fact.

I find it hard to imagine that we could achieve a written constitution in my lifetime, probably not in my ACs and possibly not in my GCs.

The problem is far more urgent than that and requires changes in today's arrangements. Those changes could be competed, as we have always done, individually and reasonably quickly. And yes, that is my opinion reached by reasoning, not rhetoric.

Grany

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

It wouldn't stop them, though. If they could find the tiniest loophole in the wording of the constitution, they'd be through it like greased eels.

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

You make it sound as if it doesn't matter how anyone else behaves Grany. Those who have tried to undermine our democracy by using the power we passed over, were expected to act as responsible stewards when they accepted that role. They have not fulfilled this.

We may have to change the powers of the Head of State. However, we should tread carefully as those powers are very carefully balanced. There are areas of democracy that need changing first, starting with the voting system. No party should be able to have such a stranglehold on a government that means it can do whatever it likes, with parliament unable to call it to account.

Elegran

The big stumbling block is how to balance "step in when needed to defend their countries constitution" with " no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics " Defining the line between one and the other could keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.

Come to think of it, the legal experts and the justiciary are the best defenders of the constitution. It was Scottish judges who declared that Johnson was out of order in proroguing Parliament early as a device for stopping parliamentary discussion while the deadline ran out on the Brexit Bill that he wanted passed.

Defending their countries constitution is what Heads of State are supposed to do when a constitutional law has been broken. It's nothing to do with getting involved in politics as queen and Charles do by lobbying ministers for their own interests and queen's consent.

The big stumbling block is how to balance "step in when needed to defend their countries constitution" with " no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics " Defining the line between one and the other could keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.

Come to think of it, the legal experts and the justiciary are the best defenders of the constitution. It was Scottish judges who declared that Johnson was out of order in proroguing Parliament early as a device for stopping parliamentary discussion while the deadline ran out on the Brexit Bill that he wanted passed.

You have taken this off-thread twice Grany - not very polite. I asked GNHQ to change my original heading so we could continue with the discussion about Heads of State. I have gone out of my way to stop myself from saying "start another thread rather than eating this one." However, that is how I feel when you bring personal points about the RF up again.

I am not interested in throwing personal insults at the Royal Family. You might have noticed that The Commission on Political Power whose article you referred us to, didn't get into the finances of the RF either. Perhaps someone else will be. I would, and it seems others would be interested in discussing the position of our Monarchy in our democracy.

I'll leave this to others for the time being. I've tried, but I've had enough now.

Everything on Twitter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth !

DaisyAnne

Grany

The Irish president get paid £4 million. Our RF if interested costs £345 million

You seem to be comparing apples with pears Grany. There is no comparison between the breadth of the role of "Monarch" and that of "Irish President".

There may be some arguments about the cost. However, this one does not hold water. I think you are distracting from what your original argument appeared to be by introducing cost at this point. You need to decide if that is your first argument or if democratic growth is.

We have always needed and had progress; in our democracy and the role of the Head of State. However, if you want others to accept your argument, they have to be able to understand it - it needs to be explicit. They also have to be able to see the truth behind it.

The Commission on Political Power may be one way of doing that. It could be worth watching the Webinar. You can registar to join it zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vmQu6JUqRPqZTrsZgC1CGA As you can see it is taking place on Zoom. The idea seems like a step towards Citizens Juries, which I for one (and Rory Stewart for another ) are greatly in favour of.

I have also emailed the Commission on Political Power to see if they will tell us how they are funded.

The breadth of Monarchy, charities don't benefit from royal patronage Giving Evidence Report. William is lazy and Charles the amount of free time Royals have to persue their own interests and passtimes is far more than the few engagements they all attend. There is a breakdown of how much free time they have on a thread on Twitter.

They use private jets, helicopters, train at a huge cost and a massive cost to the environment as well.

The cost has to be considered as its one of the most expensive compared to other monarchies The SG goes up never down.
Then there is money from the two duchies.

It's interesting to be talking about the monarchy constitution and the options. DaisyAnne

I think there will be more talk

They very kindly got back to me. The funding has been a one-off grant of £20k from the Persula Foundation. That is for consultant staff - tech, etc. They are not a charity as it is a short-term project.

Grany

The Irish president get paid £4 million. Our RF if interested costs £345 million

You seem to be comparing apples with pears Grany. There is no comparison between the breadth of the role of "Monarch" and that of "Irish President".

There may be some arguments about the cost. However, this one does not hold water. I think you are distracting from what your original argument appeared to be by introducing cost at this point. You need to decide if that is your first argument or if democratic growth is.

We have always needed and had progress; in our democracy and the role of the Head of State. However, if you want others to accept your argument, they have to be able to understand it - it needs to be explicit. They also have to be able to see the truth behind it.

The Commission on Political Power may be one way of doing that. It could be worth watching the Webinar. You can registar to join it zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vmQu6JUqRPqZTrsZgC1CGA As you can see it is taking place on Zoom. The idea seems like a step towards Citizens Juries, which I for one (and Rory Stewart for another ) are greatly in favour of.

I have also emailed the Commission on Political Power to see if they will tell us how they are funded.

This, if you scroll down to "The functions and powers of the President" shows those functions where the Irish President is concerned. Which of them does this Head of State have that our Head of State doesn't?

The one that struck me immediately was the power to refer Bills to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on their conformity to the Constitution. It looks useful.

Thank you Granny for listing those you feel have more power than our Head of State.

This, if you scroll down to "The functions and powers of the President" shows those functions where the Irish President is concerned. Which of them does this Head of State have that our Head of State doesn't?

This would help clarify what changes you think are actually missing and those that are needed.

I looked for that too, DaisyAnne and thought the same.

The Irish president get paid £4 million. Our RF if interested costs £345 million

Has anyone found who funds the Commission on Political Power. They don't seem to want to tell us although it's and interesting line up of Commissioners.

commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper

Thank you for your link Grany. For some reason it didn't work for me. I think it's because you put ... on the end without a space.

DaisyAnne

Grany

Well the chaos that is johnsons government the law breaking the lies a Head of State could not stop this? Well presidents in other countries do. An effective Head of State could have stepped in and told Johnson he should resign. But our queen cannot do this she can only do as the PM asks remember the proroging of parliment she yes to the PM.

We have a pointless and powerless Head of State

You should be asking yourselves what does monarchy actually do?

Which Presidents and what countries, Grany? A couple of examples would let us know where you are going with this.

Well all democratic countries that have Heads of State who will step in when needed to defend their countries constitution

Here are a few DaisyAnne

A few well respected good presidents

Mary McAleese, Irish president from 1997 to 2011. She was the second woman to serve as president and the first president from the north of Ireland. She was hugely popular before and since.

Joachim Gauck, German president from 2012 to 2017. He was a leading pro-democracy campaigner in East Germany, before serving as the first Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records.

Tarja Halonen, the first woman to be elected president of Finland, serving from 2000-2012. She was hugely popular while in office and since.

Mary Robinson, the first woman to be elected president of Ireland, serving from 1990 to 1997, before going on to be the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first woman head of state ever elected to the post. She was Iceland's president from 1980 to 1996. She was hugely popular while in office and since

And no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics as the queen and Charles both do.

www.instagram.com/p/CevqvqGsbFV/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Tomorrow there's an online event, on the future of the monarchy, featuring
@pollytoynbee
and
@alexhallhall
It will be looking at this 'options paper', commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper… although the options are somewhat limited. It looks like an interesting project.

Here's the link to the Commission on Political Power's paper where the options (as they see it) are laid out:
Options Paper: Head of State

commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper

So what are you thinking, Grany?

Copied From
Commission on political power

Over the last thousand years or so the monarchy – as head of state – has represented an evolved and evolving institution. The question we face today is: what is the best structure for the country of the future?

The Commission on Political Power was established to look at how our democratic systems are functioning and to formulate ideas for how we could develop. The Commission is building on academic and policy work by a wide range of experts and organisations.

It is clear that the head of state is imminently going to go through a period of change and it is our contention that the country should not slide unthinkingly into that transition, but should consider what choices are realistically available and what the implications are for each of them.

This options paper sets out, briefly, several scenarios for discussion and consultation, on the role of the head of state within the UK’s constitution and Parliamentary democracy.

The central issue it seeks to investigate is the ‘grey’ area in Britain’s political settlement when it comes to the role of the head of state. In other political systems, the role of the head of state comes with clearly-defined powers which are exercised explicitly to act as a check on the executive. This is not the case in the UK.

In the UK, the role of the head of state is occupied by an hereditary monarch premised on the principle of primogeniture. Theoretically, the head of state possesses a number of prerogative powers which act as a check on the executive branch of our political system – specifically the prime minister who heads an elected government. Practically, however, these royal prerogative powers are not used – which leaves a vacuum on any constriction of executive power.

Under the reign of the UK’s current head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, a constitutional principle has been established that these powers will not be used – not least because, as an hereditary position, there is no inherent elected legitimacy associated with the role. As such, if the UK’s current – or any future – monarch did choose to exercise these hard powers, or soft influence, a constitutional crisis of sorts may be triggered. There is thus no check on the executive from the head of state.

Added to this, in the UK’s Parliamentary system, the legislative branch is not able to serve as a truly independent check against an overreaching executive either since, by definition, the executive’s very existence is contingent on it commanding a majority in the legislature – Parliament. Nor is there an option such as exists in many other democracies for the UK’s judicial branch to fulfil that function through means of a constitutional court, as the UK does not have a formal written constitution and rather relies heavily on certain unwritten conventions and norms which have evolved over time. The tradition that Parliament is sovereign means that it can also overturn any ruling from the courts that it dislikes by passing new laws.

The non-exercise of the head of state’s prerogative powers, combined with the lack of sufficient checks and balances from other institutions, therefore means that there is a gap when it comes to having a check on the executive in the British political system.